Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Quantitative Evaluation of 2D Versus 3D Dosimetry for Stereotactic Volumetric Modulated Arc Delivery Using COMPASS

S Vikraman

S Vikraman1*, D Manigandan2 , K Karrthick1 , T Rajesh1 , R Sambasivaselli1 , V Senniandanvar1 , N Karthikeyan3 , M Muthukumaran4 , T Kataria1 , (1) Medanta The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, (2) Sri Siddhivinayak Ganapathi Cancer hospital, Miraj, Maharastra, (3)St Johns Medical College, Bangalore, Karnataka, (4) Apollo Super Speciality Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu


SU-E-T-624 Sunday 3:00PM - 6:00PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to evaluate quantitatively 2D versus 3D dosimetry for stereotactic volumetric modulated arc delivery using COMPASS with 2D array.

Methods:Twenty-five patients CT images and RT structures of different sites like brain, head & neck, thorax, abdomen and spine were taken from Multiplan planning system for this study. All these patients underwent radical stereotactic treatment in Cyberknife. For each patient, linac based VMAT stereotactic plans were generated in Monaco TPS v 3.1 using Elekta Beam Modulator MLC. Dose prescription was in the range of 5-20Gy/fraction.TPS calculated VMAT plan delivery accuracy was quantitatively evaluated with COMPASS measured dose and calculated dose based on DVH metrics. In order to ascertain the potential of COMPASS 3D dosimetry for stereotactic plan delivery, 2D fluence verification was performed with MatriXX using Multicube.

Results:For each site, D₉₅ was achieved with 100% of prescription dose with maximum 0.05SD. Conformity index (CI) was observed closer to 1.15 in all cases. Maximum deviation of 2.62 % was observed for D₉₅ when compared TPS versus COMPASS measured. Considerable deviations were observed in head and neck cases compare to other sites. The maximum mean and standard deviation for D₉₅, average target dose and average gamma were -0.78±1.72, -1.10±1.373 and 0.39±0.086 respectively. Numbers of pixels passing 2D fluence verification were observed as a mean of 99.36% ±0.455 SD with 3% dose difference and 3mm DTA. For critical organs in head & neck cases, significant dose differences were observed in 3D dosimetry while the target doses were matched well within limit in both 2D and 3D dosimetry.

Conclusion:The quantitative evaluations of 2D versus 3D dosimetry for stereotactic volumetric modulated plans showed the potential of highlighting the delivery errors. This study reveals that COMPASS 3D dosimetry is an effective tool for patient specific quality assurance compared to 2D fluence verification.

Contact Email: